God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

[Diogenes' Dog]

That is the point, everybody IS an atheist, unless they simultaneously believe in every deity! Theists will, if pressed, tell you that they don't believe in a god, other than their 'one god' saying the others are merely facets of theirs. This is arrogant, and a cop out, because admitting you don't believe in someone elses god is an admission that some things cannot be taken solely on faith or inner feelings.

It's not necessarily arrogant. Religious traditions are like human cultures, I can appreciate the validity of another culture, and maybe learn from it without either abandoning my own or claiming superiority. Theists can agree that "God" is bigger than we can encapsulate in a single religion, and hope to learn from each other. Where there is difference or disagreement, we need to have sufficient humility to agree to differ.

Atheism does not in any way imply a lack of belief in a specific, or single god. That's just a slant put on it by our christian monotheistic society. Atheism, means not believing in any god or gods.

Haven't you just contradicted yourself?!

 

[wesmorris]

I think that reason demands us to recognize that logic isn't everything, people are emotional creatures, and as such at least somewhat illogical by definition.

 

[AAF]

I think that reason demands us to recognize that logic isn't everything, people are emotional creatures, and as such at least somewhat illogical by definition.

Of course, 'logic isn't everything'.

But, and this is the catch, every false belief system can be destroyed completely by logic and reason, if that erroneous system is subjected to effective and sustained criticism long eneough.

Logic is a devastating power; and folks of religion know it.

 

[AAF]

Einstein and God

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm

"Later in life in a speech delivered in Berlin, he gave this illuminating account of himself:

Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there."

Hi Theoryofrelativity:

First, what is that 'SHEEP/GOAT' doing in front of you?

You see, T.r.;
Albert was having a public-relations problem as a celebrity scientist.

On one hand, if he admitted unequivocally that he was religious, he would certainly alienate his non-religious fans.

On the other hand, if he denied his religiosity, he would most certainly alienate his religious admirers.

So what should he do to break out of his dilemma?

Politics pointed out the way:
Talk vaguely!
Be non-specific!
And don't burn down your bridges or close off your escape routes!
Be a politician!

 

[wesmorris]

Of course, 'logic isn't everything'.

Indeed.

But, and this is the catch, every false belief system can be destroyed completely by logic and reason, if that erroneous system is subjected to effective and sustained criticism long eneough.

Hmm.. we'll have to wait and see on that one. I tend to disagree based on the tendency for what I deem "cultural lag". By this I mean a generational transference of belief.

Logic is a devastating power; and falks of religion know it.

While I agree for the most part, I don't think you're necessarily right about the outcome. As logic is necessarily dependent upon its assumptions, much can be presumed on the basis of faith. As such, religious or "new age" thinking doesn't necessarily faulter via logical criticism, though it may to the critic (like myself). I personally have no need for religion or deities, as my thought process dissallows them substance. However, they are powerful memes that have been evolving to withstand criticism over thousands of generations? Hundreds at least. They have served mankind well, IMO... and though their necessity may seem defunct at this time, especially to we critics, I'm not so sure this is true. Religion binds tribes and provides "purpose", however arbitrary it may seem as viewed externally. These properties are not surrendered lightly. While logic is very powerful tool, I'm not sure it trumps faith (especially when IMO, technically, all logic is necessarily steeped in it).

 

[phlogistician]

It's not necessarily arrogant. Religious traditions are like human cultures, I can appreciate the validity of another culture, and maybe learn from it without either abandoning my own or claiming superiority. Theists can agree that "God" is bigger than we can encapsulate in a single religion, and hope to learn from each other. Where there is difference or disagreement, we need to have sufficient humility to agree to differ.

Maybe 'theists' can, but it seems that people who adhere to a mainstream religion cannot, and wage war on each other over religious differences, and mainstream adherents far outnumber 'theists'. Proselytising mainstream religions ARE arrogant.

Haven't you just contradicted yourself?!

Exactly NOT. I said that atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods, that's all. Atheists shouldn't get led into a debate whether 'God' exists (note capitalisation), as that could imply they've made their mind up that there could only be one! It's mostly fundie Christians that twist the term to mean that atheists are 'anti god', whereas really, it's lack of belief in any god. This is what Jan does't grasp, she doesn't believe in Zeus, so she too is an atheist. The same things that make Zeus unconvincing to her, apply to her own god too. But believers try and twist out of this uncomfortable truth.

 

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC,

Because he did NOT use them in the proper way.

My questions regarding how you know this has still not been addressed.

If you read it again you will read "...in THIS sense I am religious", after describing his fascination with the secrets and mysteries of the universe. If this describes a religious person then you better call me (an atheist) religious too.

Nobody said Einstein was religious (in the sense of religion). I am not religious in that sense. God, and religion, are separate issues, which is why people have different understandings. One can be religious about anything, as being religious implies doing something in all seriousness, not deviating from that particular position. It is a state of being which does not necessarily have God at its centre.
To be a religion nowadays, one only needs to get authorisation from the government. This is a far cry from the oneness of religion. To understand this oneness, you have to come into contact, somehow, with someone who lives a pure existence. That means someone who has no anxieties, non-envious, without greed, compasionate, empathetic etc... Which is difficult, in this day and age, but not impossible.

I don't think so. I think some of the things Einstein said about religion in his day were pretty brave considering how much religion was around.

What he said about religion,wasn't about being brave, he just made intelligent observations. Unfortunately, you have taken key sentences and words, which gives the impression that he didn't believe in God, and used that as the basis of your understanding.
In those days, people had more of an understanding of God and religion. For example people believed that marriage was a holy union of man and women.
Whereas today, marriage is just a novelty.

I am an atheist who doesn't believe in any man-made God, am not religious and am in awe of the structure of the universe. That is what I say to that.

What does that have to do with being an atheist?
An atheist is a person who does not believe in God.
If you believe God is a man-made concept, then God does not exist. If God does not exist, then you are not an atheist.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. ....

I have no religious convictions, and I do not believe in a personal god, as I have stated a few times, yet I believe in God. I believe there
is Superior Spirit, which does reveal itself within our limited knowledge. So what do you say to that?

thing is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Try looking up the word "structure" then get back to me, also "...so far as our science can reveal it" implies (modern science can only reveal so much).
And coming from possibly the greatest scientist of all time, should be taken with a shed-load of salt.

Please try and answer my question from my previous post, as I would very apreciate your view.

Thanks
Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

KennyJC,



My questions regarding how you know this has still not been addressed.

You agreed with me... What do you mean? Just read your next quote.

Nobody said Einstein was religious (in the sense of religion).

What he said about religion,wasn't about being brave, he just made intelligent observations. Unfortunately, you have taken key sentences and words, which gives the impression that he didn't believe in God, and used that as the basis of your understanding.

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

Now how much further do you want to twist words to claim that Einstein was a theist when he says he is quite clearly atheist? It seems you are clutching at straws which try to make Einstein a theist. I guess even if you were to read through all of my 1,000 posts here you could subtract a few quotes that you could argue made me a theist too.

What does that have to do with being an atheist?
An atheist is a person who does not believe in God.
If you believe God is a man-made concept, then God does not exist. If God does not exist, then you are not an atheist.

It was an attempt to show you that atheists can feel those things too. Einstein was a non-believer, but when describing his awe of the universe it lead some people to think he believed in God.

I have no religious convictions, and I do not believe in a personal god, as I have stated a few times, yet I believe in God. I believe there
is Superior Spirit, which does reveal itself within our limited knowledge. So what do you say to that?

...And you believe in the afterlife, and you deny evolution with all the vigor of a christian fundie... anything else?

Try looking up the word "structure" then get back to me

I don't get it... Are you assuming that the word 'structure' implies intelligent creation? The universe has structure, not even atheists would disagree.

"...so far as our science can reveal it" implies (modern science can only reveal so much).
And coming from possibly the greatest scientist of all time, should be taken with a shed-load of salt.

Of course science can only reveal so much, but to fill the gaps with a sky fairy is stupidity.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

While I agree for the most part, I don't think you're necessarily right about the outcome. As logic is necessarily dependent upon its assumptions, much can be presumed on the basis of faith. As such, religious or "new age" thinking doesn't necessarily faulter via logical criticism, though it may to the critic (like myself). I personally have no need for religion or deities, as my thought process dissallows them substance. However, they are powerful memes that have been evolving to withstand criticism over thousands of generations? Hundreds at least. They have served mankind well, IMO... and though their necessity may seem defunct at this time, especially to we critics, I'm not so sure this is true. Religion binds tribes and provides "purpose", however arbitrary it may seem as viewed externally. These properties are not surrendered lightly. While logic is very powerful tool, I'm not sure it trumps faith (especially when IMO, technically, all logic is necessarily steeped in it).

Wes, I do admire your impartiality on these issues. As a theist who sees much value in skeptical atheism, it is refreshing to hear from an atheist who sees value in theism. Clearly your llama with whom you are visible in vigorous intercourse is a sagacious influence (is it a Tibetan Buddhist?).

Only one issue where I differ (there has to be one!), I think Dawkin's theory of memes are a bit of pseudoscience. Can it be used to make any predictions to test his theory? I'm not aware of any. His explanation of the spread of beliefs as dissemination of memes imply that humans are merely some sort of dumb culture media. This is probably how he sees the majority of people. It gives no credit for deliberate considered conscious choice. For myself, I consciously chose to take a risk and for a time suspend my disbelief of religion. This is a different process from being mindlessly infected with a meme, and I feel the whole infectious agent analogy is thus exposed as just that - an analogy of limited use. Anyway, I'd be interested on your thoughts.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

Now how much further do you want to twist words to claim that Einstein was a theist when he says he is quite clearly atheist? It seems you are clutching at straws which try to make Einstein a theist. I guess even if you were to read through all of my 1,000 posts here you could subtract a few quotes that you could argue made me a theist too.

Oh no not still arguing about Einstein! Listen Kenny, he says "from the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am [...] an atheist. This means that a Jesuit priest would see him not as a Catholic, or a Christian or even a believer, but as an atheist, because he does not believe in the Jesuit (strictly delimited) idea of God. A Jesuit would therefore see him as not accepting the existence of the Jesuit definition of God, and therefore an atheist.

Elsewhere (I won't quote them again) he clearly says he is religious. He seems to have believed in the "existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty". An incomprehensible mind behind the universe.

"I want to know how God created the this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."

He was clearly contemptuous of belief in life after death or a "personal" God of the Bible who acts and intervenes in nature. His belief is very similar to the Greek neo-platonists such as Plotinus, who believed in "The One" which is an impersonal incomprehensible mind that emanates the universe.

Plotinus offers an alternative to the orthodox Christian notion of creation ex nihilo ('out of nothing'), which would make God suffer the deliberations of a mind and actions of a will. Emanation ex deo ('out of God'), confirms the absolute transcendence of the One, making the unfolding of the cosmos purely a consequence of its existence; the One is in no way affected or diminished by these emanations. Plotinus uses the analogy of the Sun which emanates light indiscriminately without thereby "lessening" itself, or reflection in a mirror which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected.

This belief, in a "mind" behind the universe but that does not intervene is also called Deism.

The classical view of an impersonal and abstract God has caused many to claim that deism is "cold" and amounts to atheism. Deists maintain that the opposite is true and that this view leads to a feeling of awe and reverence based on the fact that personal growth and a constant search for knowledge is required. This knowledge can be acquired from many sources including historical and modern interpretations found in the many varied fields of science (biology, physics, etc.) and philosophy. Deism, like many religions, seeks to reconcile and unify with science and "modern views."

and...

The simplicity of the Deistic belief in a supreme reasoning power that is the Designer of Nature seems to be its brightest promise to those who don't feel comfortable in any of the various "revealed" religions. Currently, Deism is reaching many new people who either feel trapped in a revealed religion that requires they suspend their God-given reason in order to accept a particular claim or revelation key to that religion, as well as people who could not accept the fantastic claims made by revealed religions and felt that because of their rejection of the revealed religions they were atheists. An example of the latter is the English philosopher Antony Flew, who turned from atheism to Deism.

So, can we agree on this one now? He was not a traditional theist, or an atheist or agnostic. He was a Neo-Platonist Deist

 

[(Q)]

Elsewhere (I won't quote them again) he clearly says he is religious.

That is, along with other theist fantasies, another fantasy. And the fact that quotes have already been presented to you in which he emphatically states that he was not religious and that theists were propagating lies that he was doesn't phase you in the least?

All that you've managed to do thus far is reinforce the fact that theists refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts their beliefs.

Nice work!

 

[KennyJC]

Elsewhere (I won't quote them again) he clearly says he is religious.

By Einsteins definition of what constitutes being religious, that also makes me religious using your forced interpretation.

He seems to have believed in the "existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty".

I believe this too, but where does 'God' come into this?

 

[AAF]

...While I agree for the most part, I don't think you're necessarily right about the outcome. As logic is necessarily dependent upon its assumptions, much can be presumed on the basis of faith...

That is only half the truth.

The 'outcome' of logic depends upon assumptions only in the case of research for new knowledge or positive conclusions.

But in the case of criticizing existent belief systems, no assumptions or initial premises need to be made. And one needs only to take a specific belief system as given, and then starts demolishing it at once by uncovering its contradictions, paradoxes, and blatant absurdities.

Now, because all individuals, no matter how stupid they are, have some sort of common sense installed in them, the exposed contradictions, paradoxes, and absurdities make life unbearable for the believers in that system.

It's true that the believers in the belief system under attack behave for some time as if everything is all right. Eventually, however, they must feel the heat and modify their beliefs or abandon them entirely.

That is why reason causes such horrors and agonies among believers of all kinds.

 

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC,

My questions regarding how you know this has still not been addressed.

What do you mean?

Why would he use those words if he didn't mean them in the proper way?

Why do you accept some of what he says literally, but choose to interpret other things?

Can you give instances in other quotes where he uses words as metaphors without making clear his intention?

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

Now how much further do you want to twist words to claim that Einstein was a theist when he says he is quite clearly atheist?

Diogenes' Dog has already covered the "obvious" error in your understanding. But I would like to know if you really think Einstein means he is an atheist by that quote, or are you taking the piss.
Do you know the story of the emporers new clothes?

It seems you are clutching at straws which try to make Einstein a theist.

A theist is a person who believes in God. Einstein believed in God, which makes him a theist. So don't start with the "he was not religious crap". That has nothing to do with whether one is a theist or not.

I guess even if you were to read through all of my 1,000 posts here you could subtract a few quotes that you could argue made me a theist too.

I believe all anti-Gods are theists, otherwise they couldn't be anti-God. They only usurp the term "atheist".
IMO of course. But that's a different subject for a different thread.

It was an attempt to show you that atheists can feel those things too.

Well, it was poor.

Einstein was a non-believer, but when describing his awe of the universe it lead some people to think he believed in God.

Please answer the above questions, then hopefully I will understand better, how you come to this conclusion.

And you believe in the afterlife, and you deny evolution with all the vigor of a christian fundie... anything else?

The "afterlife" and "..and individual surviving his own death" are two different things. If you are serious in trying to understand, you will enquire more.
I understand that the only thing you know about religion is what you've taught by the institution, so I will forgive your ignorance.

I don't get it... Are you assuming that the word 'structure' implies intelligent creation? The universe has structure, not even atheists would disagree.

Structure;

Merriam-Webster

1 : the action of building : CONSTRUCTION
2 a : something (as a building) that is constructed b : something arranged in a definite pattern of organization

Encarta;

1. something built or erected: a building, bridge, framework, or other object that has been put together from many different parts

Compact Oxford English;

noun 1 the arrangement of and relations between the parts of something complex. 2 a building or other object constructed from several parts. 3 the quality of being well organized.

The term "structure" implies purposeful design, as opposed to randomness.
When the wind blows leaves around, we don't view the end result as structural, but we can understand the structural aspect when they are swept neatly into a pile.

Of course science can only reveal so much, but to fill the gaps with a sky fairy is stupidity.

Your anti-God horns are showing, which means you are being irrational.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Diogenes' Dog,

Oh no not still arguing about Einstein!

Only on the surface, but it has nothing to do with Einstein, in reality.
This is about how far fanatics will go to convince themself that their belief system is right.

Jan.

 

[AAF]

Diogenes' Dog: "...He was clearly contemptuous of belief in life after death or a "personal" God of the Bible who acts and intervenes in nature. His belief is very similar to the Greek neo-platonists...".



I don't think that anybody who is 'contemptuous of belief in life after death', can be still classified as religious.

The promise of some kind of 'Life after Death' is what makes religions extremely attractive. And without that promise, religion quite frankly is a mere mythological rubbish.

Am I right?

 

[KennyJC]

Why would he use those words if he didn't mean them in the proper way?

I already covered this which unsurprisingly you snipped out of my quote. You agreed with me.

"I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." - Albert.

When you read quotes like these it's easy to think that he had a belief in God, but they are misleading when viewed in that context. What possible purpose is there for him to use the word 'God' other than to avoid him NOT using the word 'God'. In his public speeches and writings he used language like this more often. Perhaps to deflect warnings of the dangers of atheism and science which he was always having to deal with in those days. As I said, much of his language is due to his day, and poetic way of describing the structure (yes, the structure, Jan) of the universe.

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist"

"You may call me an agnostic"... Clearly he see's himself fit to be labelled that.

He did not believe in 'spirit' or a 'soul'. If you want the quotes just ask as I dont want to paste too many without being prompted.

Einstein believed in God, which makes him a theist.

Even by your standards Jan, that is a stretch. Especially since the only quote there is that has any chance of substantiating that is the 'Spinoza's God' which is more about philosophy than theism, as well as an attempt to unify 'God' and science after criticism from some quarters.

Structure;

Merriam-Webster

1 : the action of building : CONSTRUCTION

I am well aware of the definition of structure. And all of us can agree that the universe has structure, but this is a poor argument for the existence of an intelligent (or otherwise) God. If I fart... the smell and sound has structure, although it is a stretch to call my arse God, or intelligent.

Your anti-God horns are showing, which means you are being irrational.

If I was being irrational, I would be ignoring proof... something you are guilty of from what I have read on these forums.

 

[wesmorris]

Wes, I do admire your impartiality on these issues.

Well, I used to behave differently... but over time I've realized that one's beliefs do not impact one's status as a human being. A number of people I sincerely care about are quite religious. I no longer fault them for it. In a sense, I admire them for it. It pleases me that they are pleased with it.

As a theist who sees much value in skeptical atheism, it is refreshing to hear from an atheist who sees value in theism.

Hmm... I'm not sure how comfortable I am with being your intellectual moist towelette, but what the hell, I've been worse.

Clearly your llama with whom you are visible in vigorous intercourse is a sagacious influence (is it a Tibetan Buddhist?).

Lol. That's a goat damnit. Long story, but the fad is sweeping the forums! yeah!

Only one issue where I differ (there has to be one!), I think Dawkin's theory of memes are a bit of pseudoscience.

Hmm.... well, there are a number of "sciences" I view as psuedoscience, psychology particularly so, medicine in general to a large degree.. and hmm.. well, those are the only ones that come to mind. Biology to some extent, blah blah. Fleh. Anyway, I find the notion of memes to be quite utilitarian. To me, it's merely a perspective from which to view it... not necessarily the end all be all of abstract interaction.

Can it be used to make any predictions to test his theory?

I haven't read up on it as much as I should. I have a tendency to grasp onto something and twist it into something that works for me. Man I've espoused at such great length on the topic of mind here at sciforums. So much I'd like to offer you, so little time at the moment to do so.

I'm not aware of any. His explanation of the spread of beliefs as dissemination of memes imply that humans are merely some sort of dumb culture media.

Understood, but if you consider it as a tool rather than a rule, you might see the value of it. To me it's a way to detach and consider the mechanism, allowing a temporary minimization of ego that skews thinking in this regard.

This is probably how he sees the majority of people.

I don't know him. You might be right, but it doesn't seem fair to speculate on this particular point, as he cannot defend himself here. Maybe we can get him an account.

It gives no credit for deliberate considered conscious choice.

That's entirely debatable IMO. Actually I think I disagree. Choice is part of it really. A meme cannot spread if the host chooses not to allow it, or has defenses against it. A successful meme appeals to choice.

For myself, I consciously chose to take a risk and for a time suspend my disbelief of religion.

Then you have chosen to adopt the meme, and will synthesize it in your own way.. repeating it in a new form.. perhaps increasing or decreasing its potential effectiveness based on what is valued by those with whom you might discuss it?

This is a different process from being mindlessly infected with a meme, and I feel the whole infectious agent analogy is thus exposed as just that - an analogy of limited use.

It would seem odd to me that he might consider us mindless, as the mind is the vessel of the meme. It doesn't appear to me that it necessarily excludes anything one might reasonably think of as mind. What I particularly like about the notion, is the skew on looking at the way ideas pass from individual to individual. I can't find the words at the moment. Maybe it "solidifies abstracts" in a way that really appeals to my particular take on mind and such. *shrug*

Anyway, I'd be interested on your thoughts.

There ya go.

 

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC,

I already covered this which unsurprisingly you snipped out of my quote.

My point is not concerned with whether Einstein was a religious Jew, Moslem or Christian, it is concerned with whether or not he was a theist. One does not have to be subscribed to a religious institution to be a theist.
Do you agree?

"I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." - Albert.

What possible purpose is there for him to use the word 'God' other than to avoid him NOT using the word 'God'.

I’m afraid you’re not making much sense here. As far as I am concerned he means “God” because that is what he said.
He believes God created the (structure) universe and wants to know how. Why can’t you accept what is clearly written?
Why must you interpret to suit your ideals?
That is blatant dishonesty.

In his public speeches and writings he used language like this more often.
Perhaps to deflect warnings of the dangers of atheism and science which he was always having to deal with in those days. As I said, much of his language is due to his day, and poetic way of describing the structure (yes, the structure, Jan) of the universe.

How do you know he deliberately used these tactics?

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist"

"You may call me an agnostic"... Clearly he see's himself fit to be labelled that.

In comparison to believing in a personal God, the same way in could be called an atheist in comparison to a Jesuit priest, or his belief could be likened to Spinoza's God.

He did not believe in 'spirit' or a 'soul'. If you want the quotes just ask as I dont want to paste too many without being prompted.

As you have made a definite point, I think you should provide and explain the quotes, as a matter of course.

Even by your standards Jan, that is a stretch.

You believe that Einstein used the terms God, and spirit as some kind of ruse. But this (thus far) has been your personal opinion, one in which you cannot justify your claim.
But the strangest thing is, you totally deny what is written in front of you, and feel no way about it.
I find that absolutely remarkable.

Especially since the only quote there is that has any chance of substantiating that is the 'Spinoza's God' which is more about philosophy than theism, as well as an attempt to unify 'God' and science after criticism from some quarters.

Quote;

"Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of the higher order. This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as ‘pantheistic’ (Spinoza)."

…but this is a poor argument for the existence of an intelligent (or otherwise) God.

This is not the time to spout dogma. It is the word he used, and the word has particular meaning.

If I fart... the smell and sound has structure, although it is a stretch to call my arse God, or intelligent.

Stop being an arse.

If I was being irrational, I would be ignoring proof... something you are guilty of from what I have read on these forums.

Well you are definitely ignoring what Einstein says, replacing it with what you would have liked him to have said.
As for your personal comment, I assume you are talking about the theory of evolution.
I understand the arguments to a point, but am not convinced that they constitute proof of such a mechanism, it has nothing to do with denial.
I am not going to believe that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact because other people say it is.

Judging by your treatment of Einstein’s quotes, I seriously doubt, not only your understanding, but your intent, of what makes TOE such an obvious, scientific fact to you, or anyone, for that matter, who is so blatantly dishonest about Einstein’s quotes.

He seems to have believed in the "existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty".

I believe this too, but where does 'God' come into this?

No you don’t.
Einstein believed there is an a form of intelligence behind the structure of this universe.
You don’t.
You believe the opposite.
Where does God come in?
The intelligence behind the structure.
That’s where.

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

He believes God created the (structure) universe and wants to know how. Why can’t you accept what is clearly written?
Why must you interpret to suit your ideals?
That is blatant dishonesty.

First, show me a quote where he believes God 'created' the universe.

How do you know he deliberately used these tactics?

All or most physicists/cosmologists use things called analogies. The 'God does not play dice' analogy was a good example of this, as it would not have the same soundbyte appeal if he had not used the analogy. If we must take it literal everytime someone uses the phrase 'God', then I am a theist too.

In comparison to believing in a personal God, the same way in could be called an atheist in comparison to a Jesuit priest, or his belief could be likened to Spinoza's God.

In comparison to believing in a personal God he is most certainly atheist, not agnostic. In that quote he suggests he is agnostic with regards to any God.

You believe that Einstein used the terms God, and spirit as some kind of ruse. But this (thus far) has been your personal opinion, one in which you cannot justify your claim.
But the strangest thing is, you totally deny what is written in front of you, and feel no way about it.
I find that absolutely remarkable.

The fact that Einstein stated he did not believe in a soul and/or spirit suggests quite clearly that he used these words as allegory as many brilliant scientists do, such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking:

"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." - Albert.

This is not the time to spout dogma. It is the word he used, and the word has particular meaning.

Well as you have seen, he often used the word spirit (like many atheists do also), but clearly stated he did not believe in such things.

Well you are definitely ignoring what Einstein says, replacing it with what you would have liked him to have said.
As for your personal comment, I assume you are talking about the theory of evolution.
I understand the arguments to a point, but am not convinced that they constitute proof of such a mechanism, it has nothing to do with denial.
I am not going to believe that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact because other people say it is.

A large part of the reason you reject evolution is due to your religious... oops... I mean theist beliefs (which appear to be very strong). You won't admit that to me but you know fine well that you would only have (some) merit in your rejection of evolution if you weren't a strong believer in 'God'.

Einstein believed there is an a form of intelligence behind the structure of this

Again, I am the one you claim is distorting Einstein quotes? Please provide a quote where he claims he believes in a form of intelligence behind the stucture of the universe.

Where does God come in?
The intelligence behind the structure.
That’s where.

Jan.

Well that is the difference between you and Einstein I guess.